iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2017
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2017 - Wikipedia Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iqoption.com

[edit]

iqoption.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello! I needed to make a couple of references to this site and found it to be blacklisted long ago. The domain can be found in this list (https://meta.wikimedi=a.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist), however I can't see the reasons for blacklisting it. The website is quite popular among traders worldwide and regulated by CySEC, so the spamming accusations are questionable. Can anybody help me with unblocking this domain? Rrusl u (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrusl u: no Declined. Blacklisted only months ago, and I don't think that it is not required anymore. The spamming was clear and certainly not questionable. For specific links whitelisting can be considered ( Defer to Whitelist). Also note that this is blacklisted globally, and hence we cannot remove it by discussing it here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Could you please provide the evidence of spamming so I could take further steps? Rrusl u (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask User:Vituzzu - see [1]. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was involved in a spambot attack, namely this one (see also it:n:Speciale:Contributi/YoNcApItRoIpA). --Vituzzu (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rationalwiki.org

[edit]

I have repeatedly removed this site from various articles where people have tried to use it as a reference (like here, here, here, here, here, and in many other cases I don't desire to go digging for) or inappropriately include it as an external link (like here, here, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michel_Chossudovsky&diff=758043446&oldid=754955535 here]. This has been an issue for years, and will continue to be an issue unless action is taken to prevent it from further occurrence. Consensus has been established here that links to Rational-Wiki are unwelcome per WP:BLPEL, WP:RS, WP:UGC, and WP:V. I'm sure most of the people linking to it are doing so in good-faith, but there is no reason to link to Rational-Wiki outside of the website's own article and Conservapedia's article (though it's questionable as to whether it should be linked to on Conservapedia's article), and it is already linked to on both of those articles. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 19:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spam greylist

[edit]

Please see this proposal that suggests requesting implementation of a spam greylist that would warn users. This could be a useful addition to the spam blacklist. Cenarium (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zfashioncraze.com

[edit]

zfashioncraze.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Adds a spam link to one article from each new account. - MrOllie (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dinamica-de-sistemas.com

[edit]

dinamica-de-sistemas.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Persistent spamming from rotating IPs on several articles. - MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfox.com

[edit]

Hey request to delist the page from blacklisting sites. The company is a notable one and even mentioned in Forbes and other great websites.-https://www.forbes.com/sites/suparnagoswami/2017/03/13/india-just-doubled-paid-maternity-leave-but-it-might-actually-work-against-women/#5cedac7b7536

https://www.indianweb2.com/2017/04/11/tech-enabled-rental-brokerage-company-fastfox-com-raises-rs-30-cr-series-funding/

http://www.propertyportalwatch.com/fastfox/

http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/FastFox-com-A-Tech-Enabled-Rental-Brokerage-Company-Raises-Rs-30-Cr-in-Series-A-Funding/11-04-2017-116086/

https://inc42.com/buzz/fastfox-funding/

Dear Administrators. We are startup in Home Rental industry. FastFox.com is a home rental technology company. We are integrating existing workforce to transform the way people rent home. FastFox.com allows home seekers to check pictures and in-depth information about 1000s of real time available properties, schedule house visits and finalize with the landlord. It uses technology to ensure that 100% of the homes listed on FastFox.com are authentic and available for immediate visit and closure. Whether it is sharing property information, arranging site visits or doing move-in formalities, FastFox.com technology makes it all fast and reliable.

FastFox.com sources real time information from its proprietary broker information exchange – BroEx®, used by 100,000+ brokers pan India. For the women and men who partner with us to share inventory details in their location of influence, FastFox.com is a reliable source of regular monthly business.

FastFox.com and BroEx are registered trademarks of OkuTech (P) Ltd. Founded in 2014 by IIT Alumni, the company is backed by consortium of institutional venture capital investors led by LightSpeed Partners.

As we are making great progress and really revolutionizing the way rental sector works, some of our competitors have taken note of it and having been trying out various tricks in the past to put us in bad light. These include defaming us in facebook, twitter, quora and this also includes getting us blacklisted on wiki by posting spammy links. Request you to kindly whitelist us and also forward us all the IP addresses from where our link was spammed in wiki. It will help us in taking legal course against our competitors. I personally assure you there wont be any such activity from fastfox.com in the near future and also we will taking legal action against our competitors who have had done it in the past so that they cant repeat it in near future. I am taking care of marketing at fastfox. Request you to kindly whitelist our site taken into consideration the circumstances which resulted in the blacklist. Thank you. Hoping a positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amar Jyoti001 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amar Jyoti001: no Declined, not blacklisted, but it might qualify for blacklisting if the spamming behaviour continues. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Amar Jyoti001 blanked the addition report before requesting de-listing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hongkongescort.com

[edit]

@Beetstra: another one for the list. See archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2016#hongkongescortservices.com - DVdm (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See you next time - DVdm (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fpga4student.com

[edit]

At WP:ANI[2] It was suggested that I bring up this URL here. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions include diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, and diff 5. Seems to be a mix between IP editors and registered accounts over the past two weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

scaruffi.com

[edit]

scaruffi.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews. Editors from there have been going around and warning people not to use Scaruffi in any references across all projects as an unreliable self-published source. Pinging Woovee AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was only discussed in the context of music at WP:ALBUMS, but I don't know what would change in the context of any other topic - it is the man's personal, self-published blog. It's not like that sort of sourcing would be acceptable for any other subjects on Wikipedia either. I don't understand what people's obsession with this man is - some are bizarrely in favor of him, others bizarrely against him. I don't understand the emotions behind either stance. I just got tired of people arguing about it all the time, and set up an end-all discussion about it on the WikiProject level. The WikiProject very strongly agreed he didn't meet the WP:RS standard. The reason it didn't run for very long is because it received 8 "oppose" votes while garnering zero "support" votes outside of an editor who was spending about 100% of his time at the time spamming the source on review tables. Editors occasionally whine about the result of the discussion, but refuse to start up any other discussions on it, so it hasn't changed. I think that covers everything. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scaruffi has been the author of at least nine books published by third-party publishers (as shown here). Some of this third-party-published material is being hosted on the web site. Adding the site to a blacklist would serve to prevent courtesy-linking of material that even the discussion at the Albums project would not prohibit. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want to courtesy link to that material? Look at Examiner.com. It's a blacklisted site that has plenty of secondary sources talking about it, that it doesn't have to refer to itself, and then the external link at the bottom that goes to the site. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Links for which an argument can be made that they need to be included while the site is blacklisted can always be reported on the spam whitelist. Courtesy linking however is not a sufficient argument. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kingofvapes.guru

[edit]

kingofvapes.guru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Dear Admins: King of Vapes is an ecommerce based business that was founded in 2015. Since then, the company has established a near perfect customer rating and has never had any issues with customer satisfaction or with spam in general. While trying to create a MediaWiki Page for this site I decided to dig into WikiPedia and look up the site, that's when I noticed the ban. Maybe the .guru extension triggered this, or maybe a competitor decided to have the site blacklisted for obvious reasons, but Spam shouldn't be one. The site has site-wide HTTPS, has the latest and most secure version of Magento (1.9.3.2), all emails are trusted, and the site contains no spammy content whatsoever. Nor does this site contain and spammy backlinks or outbound links. I have confirmed this myself. Their Blog is pretty new and only links to native site pages. Being that this site is pretty new it hasn't established many partnerships or backlink profile. There is no reason why this site should be blacklisted, other than competitors doing nasty things, or maybe the .guru extension has caused the site to be automatically blacklisted. I have been unable to find any info on how or why this site was blacklisted. I respectfully request for this site to be removed from the blacklist. Thanks for any time/consideration given to this dilemma. It's my first time dealing with this dilemma , so please excuse any mistakes or missing info. KingofVapes (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire .guru TLD is indeed blacklisted. As it appears to simply be a commercial site for a specific entity, I'm not sure what the case would be to add this as a link anywhere. You may also want to change your username as it violates WP:ORGNAME. Kuru (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KingofVapes: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links / this domain. The whole TLD (.guru) is blocked, nothing can be done here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neetschool.com

[edit]

Each user is repeatedly spamming this link to multiple articles until blocked, then they just create a new account. Deli nk (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deli nk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beetstra/SBH

[edit]

I have adapted the script. We are used to the regular situation, where the domains are extracted from the LinkSummary template, converted to regexes and then the script continues to add them to the blacklist. I have added functionality in that the script is now first trying to see if there are any regexes in the current section that are in a {{BLRequestRegex}} (regex as first parameter ({{BLRequestRegex|<your regex here>}}, or, if the regex contains an '=', in the regex parameter, {{BLRequestRegex}}). If the script picks up any regexes out of the BLRequestRegex, it will NOT take the links from LinkSummaries (if you need both functionalities in one thread, which is rare, then you'll need to make 2 subsections on the thread, one with a list of domains and one with the regexes, and run the script twice). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

themoviedb.org / The Movie Database

[edit]

The Move Database (urls: themoviedb.org / tmdb.org ) is a legitimate database website, used by a great many services for their film and television data needs, with a large editor base and increasing usage. Furthermore, it has risen in prominence following IMDB's removal of their message boards, and a page on WP has been created accordingly (which is ongoing). Many thanks. Jimthing (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimthing: Clearly spammed (involved editors still active as late as Oct. 2016), and I am utterly unconvinced that this is useful anywhere else, hence no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain, as I have suggested earlier. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, again you're being difficult. Can you explain in more detail what you're talking about... "clearly spammed" means what? The idea is not difficult to understand, we have links to commercial (Amazon.com owned) IMDb pages for objects on WP, so why not the alternative (open sourced) TMDb database's objects? Jimthing (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The material is user sourced, so not generally a reliable source. Also as an external link I am afraid that it does not have the standing (yet) that e.g. imdb has. Editors with a clear conflict of interest have shown a strong interest in having this on Wikipedia for a long time, something we define here as spam.
Again the 'we' .. the way you are writing suggests you have a strong conflict of interest, a question you dodged before. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest apart from being a user of the website, just as I'm a user of Discogs.com and several other websites that derive data from "user sourced" yet cross-checked by multiple users for reliability, that all feature on WP with their own article pages, and have their links/templates allowed accordingly. A double standard is being applied here. Jimthing (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The site wouldn't meet our guidelines on reliable sources, specifically our guidelines on user-generated content, so it's unclear what value would be added to Wikipedia by releasing the domain from the spam blacklist. Users would be able to add links to the site and then what? Other editors would have to clean up after them by removing the insufficient references? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As previously said, many sites derive their data from the so-called simplified expression "user derived data", who also cross-check the data integrity by the users of said sites checking it and correcting as needed, which adds a layer of transparency to the data collection, making sure it is correct and complete over time. Discogs (as previously mentioned) and Musicbrainz are two audio examples, and links to their sites are allowed accordingly (Musicbrainz is even an "Authority control" UID on WP), while The Move Database is another in the video sphere. One has to apply some analysis to the websites concerned, rather than stating blanket statements about user-derived data being bad, as it's not as easy as such simple statements. Jimthing (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to some whitelist requests to test that assumption, upon which we can revisit delisting (if there are regular granted whitelistings). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not a case of individual page whitelisting: as explained, there is no reason for most pages from TMDb's database to not be allowed. Which is exactly the reason for de-blacklisting and not the other way around. Jimthing (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is what brought this site here, and the recent interest of the site owner to have it linked, and to have an article shows that they are still interested in having the links. I hence do not believe that spamming issues are necessarily over. That is why I decline the delisting. You want to have it delisted first because you want one specific link on one specific page, that can be handled through whitelisting. If you want to make a case that delisting is warranted because there is going to be widescale use (and that any spamming besides that needs to be handled differently) then you need to show that that the site has that general use. I am not going to delist to a) have to possibly have to cleanup spam, and b) have to cleanup a massive number of unreliable sources. You haven't been able to provide reliable sources that the site itself is notable enough for Wikipedia, let alone that we should use this site as a reliable source. The site itself mentions in the FAQ that a part of the material is sourced from Wikipedia, so we are running the risk of circular referencing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes there is a reason for most pages to be excluded, and that reason was self-interested attempts to drive traffic to the site by Mr. Bell. While Mr. Bell says he hasn't tried to spam the site since 2008, the site has also been blacklisted since 2008, I believe. As for Discogs, I don't believe it's considered a reliable source either, as it too is user-contributed. See WP:ALBUMAVOID or this discussion or previous discussions here. Why isn't Discogs blacklisted? No clear indication of spam would be my guess. There's a difference between users in good faith adding unsuitable references, and users in bad faith adding unsuitable references. So the question that hasn't been adequately answered, is how Wikipedia will benefit by unblacklisting a site that wouldn't meet our reliable sourcing guidelines and that has previously been a subject of promotional editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Spamming is what brought this site here" + "I hence do not believe that spamming issues are necessarily over." – explain in detail?
  • "and the recent interest of the site owner to have it linked, and to have an article shows that they are still interested in having the links." – recent? The history shows the owner tried back in 2008 to make an article page, and as I am not them, that makes it irrelevant.
  • "You want to have it delisted first because you want one specific link on one specific page, that can be handled through whitelisting." – no, what I am asking for is both the primary domain to be allowed AND external links to object pages (whether they be movie, TV show, person). The link you link to says IMDb is "user generated" and verified by mods, just as TMDb is: the former is simply commercial data, the latter is open source. Difference: none.
  • The site itself mentions in the FAQ that a part of the material is sourced from Wikipedia, so we are running the risk of circular referencing." – no, the site only uses the WP profile for persons (with clear reference "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", for those profiles that are yet to be edited directly). This does not form the basis of circular editing, as we are linking to the user verified data below it for individual objects (movies/TV shows they have cast/crewed in).
As for the links to Discogs discussions, they are largely ill-informed ("Can Discogs be used for album credits, track length ect on an albums page as a RS" – erm, yes, the info comes either directly from the sleeve of the release &/or by multiple users play-testing the duration directly to verify accuracy), misleading in their analysis, or incomplete discussions. Jimthing (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "I hence do not believe that spamming issues are necessarily over." Not sure what he was referring to, but I do notice that there is an active discussion at the themoviedb forums titled "I think a great idea that would drive traffic to this site is..." which appears to specifically target wikipedia. I can also see that at least one participant in that discussion has attempted to act on that discussion and shows up in our blacklist attempts log. Community-driven spamming is really poor idea - you should really get a handle on that if you're in some position of influence. Kuru (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the spamming I'm asking about, as external links to TMDb, per my previous comments, should be just as allowed as IMDb ones are; given they are both "user generated data" – the point is that the data is verified over time by users cross-checking said data making it reliable on any of the sites I have mentioned above. Without understanding this, one does not have idea about how the data on any of these sites is consolidated and verified. Jimthing (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific instance, the express and literal intent was "to drive traffic." I really don't care about your struggle to compete with IMDB. I'm afraid that your attempts to paint it as a reliable source do not seem to be overly compelling - you may want to try WP:RSN and get some purchase there. At the moment, if there are active and coordinated campaigns to promote the site, removing it from the blacklist would be a poor idea.Kuru (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not the intent whatsoever, so you misconstrue one person on another sites' intent as mine. (and anyway, if you actually read the thread on their to which you refer to, it clearly says the adding of IMDb-esque External links section only, so your point is moot). My struggle is not to compete with IMDb (I appreciate both sites equally; one commercial, the other not), but to highlight the double standard between having external template links to IMDb's "user generated" (a short sighted term, anyway, given my previous comments) data, and the same "user generated" data on TMDb. Please understand the point being made, and not selectively debating irrelevant issues. Jimthing (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a relevant issue, even if it isn't "your" intent - there are still people with the clear intent of spamming links to the site with the sole purpose of promotion. There are coordinated discussions. As such, the blacklisting serves a clear purpose. I'm sorry you feel there is a double standard; I think much of that has to do with the history of how the site was used here in the past. I think that you could probably use your position at the other site to dissuade them from behaviors that reinforce the skepticism here and lead to what you perceive as a double standard. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone else's intent on taking someone on a date is to rape them; is that everyone else's intent too when they take someone on a date? No. Following that logic, anyone adding IMDb links is driving content to IMDb "with the clear intent of spamming links to the site with the sole purpose of promotion". By that understanding, any non-incumbent is not allowed, as only incumbents are allowed to 'spam their links" across WP. A completely unacceptable double standard. IMDb has been ongoing since 1990, whereas TMDb has been ongoing since 2008; both are perfectly established sites and not 'flash in the pans' that will disappear anytime soon – neither site is nefarious and the assumption that one is while one isn't is wrong. Jimthing (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I'm not sure how I can be any more clear with you. As long as there is a coordinated effort to spam links for no other reason than to drive traffic to TMDB, I would not be in favor of removing it from the blacklist. I understand that you're a strong proponent of the site, and I think it's actually a well-designed and sorely needed space on the internet, but I don't think you're following my points here. Since you've chosen to jump into rape metaphors, I'm afraid that will be the end of the discussion for me. Good luck with your cause. Kuru (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"As long as there is a coordinated effort to spam links for no other reason than to drive traffic to TMDB" – there isn't a coordinated effort to drive traffic to TMDb. So your point is not really made Kuru. Jimthing (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jimthing, below you are saying that the addition of the link to Denzel Washington is not unreasonable, which suggests that you think that it is not unreasonable to have it linked to practically every movie, TV-series, actor, producer, etc. on Wikipedia. That is the same thing as the discussion on the off-wiki thread on the forum of tmdb, that it would be good to add links to tmdb on Wikipedia pages (and one of the editors in said thread actually created an account, and tried to a link here (and since that attempt on the 25th of Feb we had 2 other accounts adding links (excluding your attempts!), while before the 25th I have to go almost 2 weeks back to get to another 2). If I look at the last of the attempts, the tmdb-page that is linked contains nothing that is not already on Wikipedia (and some of the information (which is independently referenced on Wikipedia) is different on tmdb). Moreover, we know that Travis Bell was here only 4 months ago to edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I contribute to Imdb, Tmdb and Wikipedia (any a few other sites as well) and I do not see Tmdb as a "Spam site", Sorry but back in 2008 when Beestra blacklisted it, it was acceptable because Travis "unintentionally" did try to promote his site via wikipedia, but this was in 2008, 8 years later Tmdb is a recognized and somewhat established site and since the site is not being used illegally such as for downloading of tv shows/movies freely like every other site we blacklist, it would be a good idea to remove it from the blacklist and saying that its a user-contributed site doesn't mean its not notable in its own right. Wikia is a user-generated site too, so is Imdb but we accept both for use on wikipedia because its moderated well thus content is checked all the time for accuracy, same happens there too, we can't say the same for Internet Adult Film Database or TCMB or Tv.com And yet we allow them to be used and promote their site and make financial gain...I don't think people here understand the difference between .com and .org and unless Tmdb was using wikipedia to gain financially, only then would it be a good idea to blacklist, as it stand, it does not, its just another movie database but unlike other similar sites, its free and open sourced and last i checked, we do not put open source sites on blacklists.--Stemoc 03:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Travis Bell himself created the article on the subject in the end of last year. That is the interest I mean that is shown by owners of the site in having the site mentioned on Wikipedia. So that interest clearly exists. That interest to link it more from Wikipedia is also expressed indeed on the forum, and very also that is very recently. The way that thread is going forward shows more interest in bringing people to imdb, than that it is needed to improve Wikipedia.
@Stemoc: 'Wikia is a user-generated site too, so is Imdb' .. yes, and specific Wikia's do get spammed as well, and are blanket revertlisted, and some are blacklisted. That other sites are bad does not make Imdb acceptable.
(at all) In short: there was spamming in the past, I feel there is still a risk of spamming, and there is no pressing need for these links, as it is likely like all other external wikis an unreliable source. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming is an odd word to use, yes the "spamming" in the past was 8 years ago, to be exact 100 months ago and time has passed since then, spamming is only an issue when its over used to promote a product or a site for monetary gain or piracy, this site does neither. It may very well be an alternate to IMDb which has been on a downward spiral the last 3 years with changes to its site which has created criticism not only by the public but also by the people who pay to use the site but we will never put IMDb on a blacklist even though for the last 5 years, the site has been used as a spam site with links to piracy and illegal downloads added not only to its forums (boards) but content pages as well ([[swiki] and lists). I actually remember reporting atleast 1800 such links to moderators on imdb over the last 3 years even when links to download pirated movies were blatantly on the main page of the titles, they were not being removed. Infact before the boards shut down, nearly every newly released film's discussion board had a link to where the title can be downloaded from illegally ofcourse, no wonder they shut down the boards. That was one of the worst cases of spamming i have seen and yet we never chose to blacklist imdb, so why is this? there is a risk of spamming from every site that has its own listing on wikipedia, our job is not to stop that but to weed out those that can actually be harmful to the project only. There are some very bad Hombres out there, its our job to weed out the worst of the kind and as it stands, themoviedatabase is caught in the cross fire. Lets not dump the site along with all the other illegal pirate downloading sites we have blacklisted over the years, i infact blacklisted a few of them myself over the years (at meta) and that is why i'm 100% sure that this site does not deserve to be blacklisted. If Commercial sites can use wikipedia to promote themselves, why do we block non-commercial ones? just because we fear they would do the same?. How much of IMDb traffic is actually from wikipedia? do you know the answer to that cause i'm 100% sure the traffic from Imdb to wikipedia is much much less as they refuse to use wikipedia as a reliable source (in their external links sections or to update Date of births/deaths etc) and we refuse to use imdb as a reliable source even though we allow IMDb to spam its links all over wikipedia and yet a site that was only ever spammed ONCE, 8 years ago is the one we are trying to blacklist..--Stemoc 04:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read what Wikipedia considers spamming, which is something different than the definition the outside world is using. We define it as that inappropriate promotion, or as the inadvertent (uncontrollable) addition of external links. Here there were 2 accounts and one IP involved in this promotion (creation of articles, adding of links), At that time, that was enough to blacklist themoviedb.org. tmdb.org was blacklisted later as a plain redirect to the other. There now is still interest, 96 months after the initial spamming, and by people with a vested interest, to have The Movie Database displaying here on Wikipedia. Moreover, there is, on the site, a suggestion to put links to the site on Wikipedia. It does not matter whether it is by people who make money with a site, or by someone else, or even as a Joe job, inadvertent additions to Wikipedia are prohibited, they are spam, and if that action that is suggested on the forum is actually carried out after the site is removed from the spam blacklist, it will immediately result again in blacklisting. With that suggestion on the forum, and the site owner being active a mere 4 months ago shows that the spamming problem (spamming as how Wikipedia defines it) did not necessarily go away. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I would understand what your trying to do. But again you fail to explain why IMDb is allowed its own external links template, while TMDb is not? You are also pre-judging others intentions as if they are the site mgmt of one of the sites, when I'm not and others are not, and also pre-judging the importance of WP as 'driving traffic' to another site, when WP only contain a fraction of the number of objects that both the IMDb & TMDb sites actually contain, so it's a false argument that WP is a mass driver of traffic to either of them anyway. Jimthing (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS/WP:OTHERLINKS. themoviedb.org was spammed (2 accounts with several edits, one IP with one edit), and the editors are still/again here to promote their business (why else would they make an article, instead of waiting for a totally independent editor to create it). They wanted it to be visible, they want the exposure. For the imdb we do not have such observations of spamming, and most, if not all, of the links are added by independent editors. For tmdb I haven't seen such requests (we would either have seen regular de-listing requests or whitelisting requests). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and the editors are still/again here to promote their business (why else would they make an article, instead of waiting for a totally independent editor to create it). They wanted it to be visible, they want the exposure." Again, this is plainly not true. I am not an editor or have any connection to the site whatsoever, nor have I ever spammed about it, so you're blanket judging motives yet again, without direct evidence to back up such claims. Old accounts and an IP does not mean other users are copying or plain to copy the same route. Furthermore, the statement 'they want the visibility/exposure' can be applied to argue against anything without having any real arguments against the the validity of the subject matter concerned. "For the imdb we do not have such observations of spamming, and most, if not all, of the links are added by independent editors." I am an independent editor, I have never edited a single page on TMDb, in fact I came to WP expecting to find out more about it given it's a large database that's been around a number of years used by lots of other meta-services, and when I found absolutely nothing contributed the article page and further edited it accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jimthing, you blatantly copied the version that was created last year by User:Travis Bell in their userspace (and you did not want to acknowledge that - but the article was made between the time that someone else mentions the Travis Bell version, and you mentioning that you started the article, and is virtually the same including the same visiting date for the references that were used in the article). Travis Bell is the person that I am talking about, not you, or do you want to deny that this creation was not performed by the same person that precipitated the blacklisting in the first place about 9 years age (together with another editor and an (single edit) IP). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I noticed no article page here, the google result found the few lines on a WP user page from years go which I expanded upon, without realising that was a crime around here (which user Amortias fixed the attribution issues and the copyvio problem via a history merge) and then further changes to the text have been made on top. ...so that means what exactly, in relation to the issue being discussed here; the site being removed from the blacklist? It's irrelevant. Jimthing (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the fact that it was a good faith mistake to not attribute the original which you paraphrased too close, but you dodged the question repeatedly. And your participation and timing of participation in the off-wiki thread is too coincidental as well.
The point is, that people with a conflict of interest were here a mere 4 months ago editing to create the page that you paraphrased. After almost 9 years the people still have interest. Then there is the off-wiki suggestion that tmdb should be linked more from Wikipedia (an action that was actually tried by one of the participants of the threads on the tmdb-forum!). For blacklisting it does not matter who adds the links, the problem is the unsollicited addition of links in violation of our inclusion standards. Travis Bell showing interest, and editors suggesting similar on the off wiki forum is enough to make me very weary that de-blacklisting will result in an influx of pages, also in places where it is not warranted. Again,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links for which a good case can be made. Lets see whether we understand which pages need additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(As a reference on here, a WL was done for main article page. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#themoviedb.org ). Still, the underlying usage question remains for linking on WP article pages' EL section to TMDb object pages, using an appropriately created template (e.g. {{TMDb name|5292}} would take you to page "themoviedb.org/person/5292-denzel-washington", with the format looking like "Denzel Washington at TMDb"). Not unreasonable. Jimthing (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although, undoubtedly, there will be pages that benefit by a link to tmdb, such a link is unreasonable on, e.g., Denzel Washington per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:ELNO. The Movie Database does not have the same standing as imdb (yet), and I am one of the editors who actually would oppose inclusion of imdb (again, per WP:ELNO). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2017&oldid=1095644191"